Staff remission of Fees
Birkbeck Governors recently agree a new fee remission scheme. Currently, staff can apply to have 100% fee remission, under the new scheme most people would only get 50% fee remission. These changes were made without consultation with staff and unions. You can read the document that went to governors here: New fee remission scheme
Unison organised a meeting for staff on 4th April 2012 concerning the changes to staff remission of fees. This meeting was supported by the other College unions and was open for all members of staff to attend. The organisers of the meeting have summarised below a number of concerns about the new scheme, which College unions have asked the college to reconsider.
We understand that in some cases that staff will get 95% of their fees paid, and will be expected to pay just 5% towards their fees. Nobody at the meeting expressed any concerns about staff paying 5% fees as a way of demonstrating commitment to a programme of study. Our concerns are that this level of support will not be available to most staff who do wish to study.
We were particularly concerned about the lack of consultation, and the timing of this that seemingly cuts across the People strategy that HR are just beginning to consult staff about.
The case for change
We believe that there are three inter-related financial issues driving the college’s decision:
- The withdrawal of the HEFCE grant lessens the financial incentive for the college to allow staff to study.
- The significant increase in fees will mean that the previous year’s budget could not support the number of staff studying in the current or previous years using the existing remission of fees system.
- The devolution of school budgets means that schools are keen to maximise income.
The case for support for staff
Against this, however, we believe that there is a more compelling case to continue to allow staff to study without charging any more than a nominal 5% of fees:
- However the costs of the remission of fees scheme are worked out, they are largely fictitious, created by the internal market:
- Without significant support for staff, many staff simply wouldn’t study so the college would not realise the income any way.
- At the same time, most programmes do not completely fill up, and it costs the college very little for a member of staff to be sitting through classes that would run anyway, particularly since staff already have access to most services such as library and IT access that other students receive.
- There are large numbers of staff who do not actually study, but from whom the college receives a degree of goodwill due to their knowledge that such a scheme exists if they chose to make use of it.
- Scrapping sponsorship of staff sets a very bad example for other employers and goes against the college’s mission to promote education for working adults.
- The college benefits enormously having both administrative and academic staff who are taking part in Birkbeck programmes of study.
- It encourages a commitment to the college mission,
- It creates layers of staff who identify more closely to the rest of our student population, and
- It enables the college to maintain the commitment of staff in ways that it isn’t able to simply through salary recompense. When staff have received below inflation pay rises for several years, this has been one way that the college has been able to rewards staff at minimal actual cost.
Other questions
There were a number of other specific questions raised about the scheme that we would like clarification around:
- The scheme specifically excludes PhD students. Does this mean that the college will not support PhD study, or will these simply be treated differently under a different package? If the former we feel there would be serious implications to the college’s research.
- Is the college now no longer going to support staff who are classed as international students?
- Will lecturers and teaching assistants who are required to do a PGCE be funded separately from this scheme?
- We could not understand the reasoning behind linking approval of funding to the PDR process. Currently many staff partake in study out of personal interest that is nothing to do with their role as employees. Despite this we believe the college benefits immensely from this for reasons outlined above. The college is able to recruit and retain a far higher calibre of graduates who are interested in doing post graduate study, for example, than they would otherwise be able to do so through current salary recompense. We would like clarity as to whether linking approval for funding is a move to limit study to work-related study. If it isn’t this should be made clear to line managers who are to be asked to approve or refuse applications.